King Kong

0

JillH.Jan 1, 2006

Recently, Ebert gave 0 stars to Wolf Creek because he found it dehumanizing that people would wish to see people cruelly killed. Yet in King Kong, a movie he and so many others hailed as a masterpiece, we are supposed to cheer for the Recently, Ebert gave 0 stars to Wolf Creek because he found it dehumanizing that people would wish to see people cruelly killed. Yet in King Kong, a movie he and so many others hailed as a masterpiece, we are supposed to cheer for the killer, a monstrous ape that kills A LOT of innocent people in this 3 hour long snooze fest. Humanizing, indeed.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

SocratesJan 1, 2006

Wow. I couldn't have asked for a worse New Years Eve party than going to to see this movie. It was long and boring as hell, and nothing felt connected; everything seemed like a short, stupid scene that had no relation to the next Wow. I couldn't have asked for a worse New Years Eve party than going to to see this movie. It was long and boring as hell, and nothing felt connected; everything seemed like a short, stupid scene that had no relation to the next ("We're running from dinosaurs! Now we're shooting at King Kong!"). The CGI felt as weightless and lifeless as all CGI in almost every movie I've seen does. Jackson shows just how truly literal and thoughtless he is with this film, for here he could have made any number of important statements regarding a slew of problems in the world. Instead, he opts to make a complete remake of the original film, complete with all the racial stereotypes of the time. Entertainment Weekly just said that Jackson is the new Spielberg, and since Spielberg isn't even done yet, I guess we can all be excited for twice as many overbloated, self serious and cranially incapacitated movies each year. Joy.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

RichardE.Jan 1, 2006

I'm truly amazed. I really am? I read things like the story was so touching? Have any of you ever seen the original made back in 1933? What in the world was original about this bombastic sorry excuse for a motion picture? The acting was I'm truly amazed. I really am? I read things like the story was so touching? Have any of you ever seen the original made back in 1933? What in the world was original about this bombastic sorry excuse for a motion picture? The acting was simply awful. The directing was some of the worst I have ever seen. And the dialogue was awful too and made no sense. Add to this the film being about twice as long as it should and it all adds up to one big mess. The story of Beauty and the Beast has been told many times. Peter Jackson has not done anything worthy of two hundred million dollars of wasted money. This is as bad a film that I have seen in a long long time. The movie isn't even out two weeks and the theaters are half full. It is a disaster at the box office despite the hoopla by idiots who act as if this is an original idea.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

ChongKokH.Jan 1, 2006

I think it's a very good movie if you can get what it tries to tell from the movie. I may not understand it completely or may have thought too much. But it's very touching. Imagine a lonely child trying to protect something he I think it's a very good movie if you can get what it tries to tell from the movie. I may not understand it completely or may have thought too much. But it's very touching. Imagine a lonely child trying to protect something he loved and died tragically when he try to give the best to his beloved.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

VinceM.Jan 1, 2006

In my opinion Peter Jackson is one of the best directors of our time, this movie is one of the best of the year, a little long but you couldn't tell his version of this story one and half hours

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

RickieJan 1, 2006

Remember the movie AS GOOD AS IT GETS? Well, KING KONG is AS BAD AS IT GETS! This was one long drawnout farce of a flick. Peter Jackson should be ashamed. No acting, no directing, no dialogue and just plain out STUPID!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

SamD.Jan 1, 2006

Great special effects. Jack Black was good. An hour to long.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

FrancisDec 31, 2005

Great movie, what a follow-up to Lord of the Rings!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

StephanC.Dec 31, 2005

The movie was very good, and quite moving. It was a tad long, though.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

LeslieL.Dec 31, 2005

Its so ridiculous it is frightening. Obviously the critics are bought and paid for. The acting was attrocious, the directing even worse and the plot a total joke. If there was dialogue I must have missed it because I did start to nod off Its so ridiculous it is frightening. Obviously the critics are bought and paid for. The acting was attrocious, the directing even worse and the plot a total joke. If there was dialogue I must have missed it because I did start to nod off during the excruciating long first hour. By the time we get to Skull Island the movie turns into a comedy. Peter Jackson is a joke.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

MichaelW.Dec 31, 2005

An hour an 15 minutes too long. An hour an 15 minutes too long. An hour an 15 minutes too long. An hour an 15 minutes too long. An hour an 15 minutes too long. An hour an 15 minutes too long. An hour an 15 minutes too long. Get my drift?

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

DanL.Dec 31, 2005

When they weren't on Skull Island, it was boring and some of the NYC street scenes looked real fakey.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

ThomasH.Dec 31, 2005

Ulp, it might have been Ok as a B-Movie, but this was just violent mindless pretentious schlock. The Characters were just 2d Peter Jackson has done a George Lucas and lost his mind, making something that could be good, bad. All might have Ulp, it might have been Ok as a B-Movie, but this was just violent mindless pretentious schlock. The Characters were just 2d Peter Jackson has done a George Lucas and lost his mind, making something that could be good, bad. All might have been Ok, had it been an hour shorter, but no forget it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

GarethRDec 31, 2005

It is Great, see it . . you will love it, i did, it was great.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

AndyH.Dec 31, 2005

Tens? You people are giving this trashy movie a ten as in Gone With The Wind? You call this a perfect movie? If so there is a bridge I want to sell you? First off this movie is way over the top and too long. Secondly, it is boring and Tens? You people are giving this trashy movie a ten as in Gone With The Wind? You call this a perfect movie? If so there is a bridge I want to sell you? First off this movie is way over the top and too long. Secondly, it is boring and downright laughable. The dialogue is nonexistant. The acting is awful especially Jack Black. Adrian Brody simply in unbelievable as the love interest for Ann Darrow. There is no chemistry. As for Skull Island it doesn't compute. The CGI is over the top. The writing is laughable. The native scene is racist pure and simple. They are canibals who worship Kong. Why? How did they build that giant wall without being eaten by all the other monsters that inhabit the Island. Perhaps in the sequel when Peter Jackson tells us what we saw was a dream that this will be explained right? Secondly, if Kong is the true master of all the monsters how come he is the only Ape on the island? Where are the others? How was he born? Where are his parents? His brothers? His sisters? His children? His mate? I guess he was in danger of becoming extinct because of Jack Black types taking him to other major cities to destroy them? Anyway the circus stunts were great with the same reel of the dinasaur stampede repeated three times. Then Kong fights 3 T-Rexs with one hand while holding Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) in the other. Yeah right? And didn't you love how the Captain suddenly became an action hero shooting spiders with one hand while swinging on the vine with the other. I tell you this was something else. Then the damaged boat takes Kong back to NY. How did they get him on the boat? How did they keep him from jumping ship? Where did they keep him? Remember this was a little boat that was damaged on the rocks when it came to Skull Island? He couldn't fit through any doorway? He couldn't fit in one of those cages him being a 4 ton gorilla? What did they feed him? How come he didn't destroy the boat? They had no chains to hold him? Explain it to us? Then he comes to NY and destroys the City on cue. As for Naomi in a flimsy dress and high heels, well, after everything else I saw, why not in in the middle of winter without a coat. The only thing missing was one of those vampire bats flying by the Empire State Building and Kong grabbing hold like Adrian did and being flown back to Skull Island with the natives chanting Kong - Kong - Kong! By the way, the natives that worshipped Kong where did they disappear too when the Big Ape fell asleep? I guess Peter Jackson's budget ran out. And you idiots gave this movie a ten? I only wish Peter Jackson could have been eaten by one of his wormy creatures from the head down? This movie was a disgrace. And finally what does Circa NYC 1933 have to do with the remake of the remake of King Kong? Was it germain to the story of Kong? Absolutely Not! But Jackson decided since the original was shot in 1933 why not spend some more money on some useless trailer trash. This effort was ugly.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

MallardD.Dec 30, 2005

This movie was hilarious for all the wrong reasons. It needs the Mystery Science Theater III treatment in the worst way. I burst out laughing when Kong sees Naomi Watts approaching him down a surprisingly deserted NYC street in the middle of This movie was hilarious for all the wrong reasons. It needs the Mystery Science Theater III treatment in the worst way. I burst out laughing when Kong sees Naomi Watts approaching him down a surprisingly deserted NYC street in the middle of winter wearing a flimsy dress and a halo of light behind her. Where is Servo when we need him? The ONE moment I was waiting for didn't even happen: seeing Kong land on Joe Black as he hits the street after falling from the ESB. All in all a King Kong pile of crap.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

ETDec 30, 2005

This movie was ponderous. It is tiresome. It did not need to last 3 hours. This movie doesn't seem to know whether it's an action flick, a comedy, a romance, a war film, a period piece or a special effects reel. It is all of the This movie was ponderous. It is tiresome. It did not need to last 3 hours. This movie doesn't seem to know whether it's an action flick, a comedy, a romance, a war film, a period piece or a special effects reel. It is all of the above, which is why it lasts 3 hours. This movie shows the worst of human nature, up close and personal, repeatedly, over, and over again. Peter Jackson seems to have a penchant for extended repetition. I can't rate it a '0' because I stayed the whole way through. It was reasonably well produced. Naomi Watts is easy on the eyes. If it had been tightened up a I could have seen rating it a 7 or 8. A *LOT*, I say. But we all know editing is the hardest part, and if people are going to see it anyway, why bother? Spoiler: In the end, Naomi loses the hairy flare-nosed chimp and ends up with the hairy flare-nosed chump. Ta-da.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

GabrielD.Dec 30, 2005

This movie was great!! I dont see how anyone could give it a zero!!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

MikeDec 30, 2005

I started to like the movie for the first 30 mins, and then it became very very bad. The fighting between king kong and 3 trex was laughable. The acting is also very very bad, and this is very disappointing because in other films these I started to like the movie for the first 30 mins, and then it became very very bad. The fighting between king kong and 3 trex was laughable. The acting is also very very bad, and this is very disappointing because in other films these actors are great!!! Can it be becasue of the bad directing? The only great thing about this movie are the special effects. nothing else.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

PopechonR.Dec 30, 2005

Bastante buena, lastima que es PG RATED 13 en E.U. porque ganaria mas dinero y merece ser vista por todos, pero su calidad es genial en todo!, Peter jack, es el mejor filmmaker de la decada!. thats all.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

CalebD.Dec 30, 2005

This is the best movie ever. Action, suspense, drama, the whole lot. For the people who say its too long, you dont know movies. You were not watching the movie, you were watching your watch. Be in the moment of the movie. You, critics, get This is the best movie ever. Action, suspense, drama, the whole lot. For the people who say its too long, you dont know movies. You were not watching the movie, you were watching your watch. Be in the moment of the movie. You, critics, get in for free, but we have to pay up to $10. I think we got our moneys worth. Once again, best movie ever.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

WarrenL.Dec 30, 2005

Somebody has lost their mind and I know it isn't me. This was one of the worst movies ever made. I know you loved it because of the special effects? Big deal. There is more to a movie than CGI. The first act over 70 minutes long is Somebody has lost their mind and I know it isn't me. This was one of the worst movies ever made. I know you loved it because of the special effects? Big deal. There is more to a movie than CGI. The first act over 70 minutes long is totally boring. Who cares about showing signs of the depression. How does that come into play in King Kong other than the original was made in 1933? Secondly, Jack Black with his one dimensional stare was simply awful. After the first boring act is over with get to Skull Island aka Jurassic Park. Did I actually see natives in black paint? And the stampeding dinosaurs shown the same loop three different times. C'mon. Then for your entertainment pleasure watch as Kong fights not one, not two but three T-Rex's all at the same time. And if that wasn't enought the vampire bats attacking Kong in his lair but not our hero's was over the top. But then not to be outdone wasn't it a nice touch with the Captain swinging on a vine while shooting the spiders off of our hero's without one bullet even grazing them? And sure a small bottle of chloroform will put that Big Ape to sleep. Can anyone explain how he did not drown or how they lifted him on the damged little tug boat that could? And if you want to believe that how did they feed him or contain him on his journey back to NYC? Do you want to tell me that they magically obtained steel chains that tied him to the damaged boat? Well, if that's not bad enough when he arrives in NYC they had to have rehearsals before the native dance number with the blonde, not Ann Darrow, sacrifice right? How come he never reacted that entire time. I guess he waited for opening night to destroy NYC? And if that wasn't enough, the ending in the winter with Ann without a coat in a light spring dress with high heels ascending up the ladder to the top of the tallest building in NYC was just the icing on the cake. Now if you want to explain any of these plot holes be my guest but you won't be able to. And by the way, where did the natives disappear to? Remember that they risked life and limb to kidnap Ann for Kong but somehow vanished when he got hit with a little teenie weenie bottle of chloroform. You people raving about this trailer trash of a movie are totally insane. You are desparately in need of some professional help.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

GlennR.Dec 30, 2005

Simply put, 'King Kong' is a really bad movie. It's too long, it's poorly written, the dialog is awkward, there is no chemistry between the stars (with the exception of Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis), and it's miscast Simply put, 'King Kong' is a really bad movie. It's too long, it's poorly written, the dialog is awkward, there is no chemistry between the stars (with the exception of Naomi Watts and Andy Serkis), and it's miscast (it's clear that Jack Black was cast solely for his box office appeal, because he is not at all believable as a high-powered movie producer). Many of the special effects looked no different to me than special effects in movies from the 70's -- or even the 30's for that matter -- so I'm not sure why we're supposed to be wowed by them. Many of the scenes were so drawn out and repetitive that I was actually bored. The subplots -- the romance and the coming of age story -- were listless and uninteresting. The only redeeming parts of the movie were the performances by the beautiful and talented Watts, who did a decent job making me think she actually cared about the ape, and by Serkis, who made the ape seem almost human at times. Other than that, I thought it was a complete waste of $9.75 and three hours. The ending is supposed to be sad, but instead I was mostly happy and relieved that it was over.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful

9

RobertR.Dec 29, 2005

This is a movie that definately deserved a remake, as the special effects that are now possible provide spellbinding entertainment for this story. Jackson should be proud, as he has putt together a movie that is both true to it's This is a movie that definately deserved a remake, as the special effects that are now possible provide spellbinding entertainment for this story. Jackson should be proud, as he has putt together a movie that is both true to it's original origins, whilst remaining relevant and exciting in the current time. Naomi Watts is cast perfectly as the love interest of tragically-fated Kong, and provides ear-piercing screams in this performance, as well as accurately portraying the complexity of her character. Overall, an action-packed and supreb remake of a classic movie, that will become a classic in it's own right. Best special effects leap since "Jurassic Park".… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

KingkongtetoDec 29, 2005

La mejor en produccion, foto, actriz, director, sonido y efectos especiales, una de las 3 mejores del año, le doy 10, pues solo Peter Jackson ha demostrado que el cine fantastico y de acción se puede hacer con mucha seriedad La mejor en produccion, foto, actriz, director, sonido y efectos especiales, una de las 3 mejores del año, le doy 10, pues solo Peter Jackson ha demostrado que el cine fantastico y de acción se puede hacer con mucha seriedad amando verdaderamente el cine y las historias... mas satisfactoria que la original del 33, no es solo un remake sino uno de los mejores remakes de la historia del cine. 2005's Best pircture.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

BenH.Dec 29, 2005

I had very high expectations for this movie before I saw it. After it was over, I was very convinced that this is one of the best movies ever made. Even though it wasn't as amazing as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I thought it followed I had very high expectations for this movie before I saw it. After it was over, I was very convinced that this is one of the best movies ever made. Even though it wasn't as amazing as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I thought it followed by very closely. Overall, I think everyone should see this film because it appeals to many types of audiences.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

CATHYF.Dec 29, 2005

Absolutely an amazing film! Mind blowing!!I did not think 3 hours could go by that fast. Mr. Jackson really paid tribute to this film. Loved it!!!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

ErikN.Dec 29, 2005

Spectacular and one of the best monster movies ever made. Tons of fun, brilliant effects and emotionally very moving. Another terrific job by Peter Jackson.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

DanielleDec 29, 2005

more emotional resonsance than the original. not great, but really good. just too long.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

AMovieCriticDec 29, 2005

This movie was very good. Very emotional, PERFECT musical score, amazing special effects, some great acting, (I don't see why Jack Black is being criticized for his performance in this. He fit the part perfectly) awesome action scenes, This movie was very good. Very emotional, PERFECT musical score, amazing special effects, some great acting, (I don't see why Jack Black is being criticized for his performance in this. He fit the part perfectly) awesome action scenes, and King Kong himself was perfectly realized. The action was at times amazing. A very fun movie that would be considered a classic..... EXCEPT....it's way too long. Peter Jackson NEEDS someone to go through his scripts and edit. That's what he needs. This movie was made to be a 3-hour movie, and this isn't the type of story that warrants a 3-hour movie. It's that simple. And as excited as I was during this, I couldn't help wondering when it would end...it just seems to go on forever. Particularly early on in the movie. It gets off to a great start, but way too much time is spent on a boat. I literally almost fell asleep after about an hour of this movie. Scenes that I would have cut would include the island natives early on. That entire scene was completely pointless, and the natives never made an appearance again, and were never discussed again. Could have been cut, and nobody would have noticed. Many scenes on the boat also could have been cut. If this movie was about 45 minutes shorter, it really would have been excellent. As it stands, though, it's a good movie. It would have been great, but it's way too long, and I would NEVER see it again for this reason. It just wears you out by the end more than anything else. Hopefully this film's lower-than-expected box office numbers will show Peter Jackson that NOT every movie he makes should be 3 hours long. It worked for the LoTR movies, (although I personally think these could have also used some editing,) but with a story like this, there was no reason for it to be 3 hours long. Still a very good movie, but prepare to leave the theater exhausted.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

VisheshC.Dec 29, 2005

Unecessarily Long. Exaggerated even for a science fiction flick. Although the effects and the sequence make up for the abruptness of the movie.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

GeorgeF.Dec 29, 2005

How some complain about the 3 hour length is a mystery. This is a throwback to the great movie experiences of Hollywood's Golden Era, but with special effects and characters you care about. Sit, watch, enjoy!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

DavidS.Dec 29, 2005

This is what movies used to be like - true spectacles, events, escape. Now that studios will throw millions t anyone with a joke that appeals to a 13 year old (sounds vaguely like the venture capitalists in the dot-com era, frankly), This is what movies used to be like - true spectacles, events, escape. Now that studios will throw millions t anyone with a joke that appeals to a 13 year old (sounds vaguely like the venture capitalists in the dot-com era, frankly), it's a pleasure to go to a film that puts to shame the theaters in which it's showing. I am sympathetic to concerns that the film is too long, but have to counterpoint that Jackson expertly interrupts scenes that seem to be going too long. The death scene between Naomi Watts and Kong is worth the price of admission.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

LarryS.Dec 29, 2005

Aww come on! Do we really need another remake. Another King Kong. Yikes what a stupid idea by the American movie industry. Here's an idea how about an original idea with some good writing that makes you think. Special effects were Aww come on! Do we really need another remake. Another King Kong. Yikes what a stupid idea by the American movie industry. Here's an idea how about an original idea with some good writing that makes you think. Special effects were poorly done considering the technology available. Naomi Watts what were you thinking! Another non stop action movie with nothing to say. Ugggghhhh! A movie for tweenies!!!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

RichardD.Dec 29, 2005

It was not believable enough and too long.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

BenC.Dec 28, 2005

Mixed bag, and that's a disappointment from Mr. Jackson. There are very effective moments in this movie (the T-Rex brawl, many of the Ann/Kong moments, and the savages were down-right terrifying) but there are equally ridiculous moments Mixed bag, and that's a disappointment from Mr. Jackson. There are very effective moments in this movie (the T-Rex brawl, many of the Ann/Kong moments, and the savages were down-right terrifying) but there are equally ridiculous moments which sap the validity of the story. For me, the first of these occurs when the brontos stampede over our heroes... it's just flat-out stupid that anyone could survive that, not to mention some of the WORST effects seen in a long time. Sure, sure some will say 'movies are about fun and checking your brain at the door' but that's misguided; they're about making the unbelievable believable, and this movie disappointed me in that regard once we get into some very ingenuous plot decisions on Skull island. Also I found Jack Black somewhat disappointing, or rather Jack Black's recurring wide-eyed stares... cuz that's really all there is of him.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

RhettW.Dec 28, 2005

Technically and emotionally on a level making it one of the best "popcorn" movies of all time. Naomi Watts gives a landmark "blue-screen" peformance.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

JeremyDec 28, 2005

Hated It. Way toooooooo looong.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

EdwardS.Dec 28, 2005

6-star film with an 8-star film swallowed up inside it. Apart from wretched excess running potentially winning action sequences into the ground, the current release desperately needs: 1. An intermission right after the 'spider pit' 6-star film with an 8-star film swallowed up inside it. Apart from wretched excess running potentially winning action sequences into the ground, the current release desperately needs: 1. An intermission right after the 'spider pit' sequence; and 2. A (much) better score - Bernard Hermann would have put audiences' fatigued bums right on the edges of their seats with the same visuals...… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

AlistairD.Dec 28, 2005

Brillant. It is great too see long films being made and great to see a big budget film that's actually good. Some ridiculous bits here and there but for the most part a fantastic film.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

OLGUNS.Dec 28, 2005

Wonder.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

DannyD.Dec 28, 2005

Simply too much of a good thing. The original was able to tell the same story in under 2 hours. Peter Jackson should have slimmed down the movie instead of himself.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

davidDec 28, 2005

Everything i wanted to say was said by Steven N. Great review! Every one of those points were right on. There are movies you just have fun with and say "its just a movie". but the action scenes on this one was sooooo bad that i could not stand it.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

KeithL.Dec 27, 2005

I waited over 4years for this when I heard Peter jackson was going to make this movie and...wow. I can't put into words how over the top and bad King Kong was. 3 hrs of my life wasted. I'll never get it back. Don't believe the I waited over 4years for this when I heard Peter jackson was going to make this movie and...wow. I can't put into words how over the top and bad King Kong was. 3 hrs of my life wasted. I'll never get it back. Don't believe the hype or the critics, the studio paid handsomely for those write ups no doubt because this a brainless farce that drags and lopes with no sense of grounding whatsoever. To make matters worse, it looks hastily prepared. The special effects aren't very special in many spots and, hey now, the story lags too. Bad, bad, bad, and it sucks too. Did I mention that we all hated it? This is as bad as the following: The Mummy, The Hulk, Batman & Robin, Godzilla 1998, and ANY of the Star Wars prequels (admittedly I have not seen Episode III--and don't need or want to). It actually makes Dino DeLaurentis' 1976 version look like pure genius. Peter Jackson, what have you done? Thank god it was $5 night. BTW: Funny story. I left to pee during the excruciating bug attack sequence and there were people in the hallway harassing theatre emplyees for their money back over this. One guy said, "you mean to tell me I have to sit in there for another hour and not get some kind of compensation?" I busted out laughing and expressed my sentiments. If I had to sit through it, WE ALL had to sit through it. … Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

RossN.Dec 27, 2005

Interesting to see such a broad range of opinions and ratings. Some of those who've dismissed it I believe are missing the point and probably need to relax a little more. I was enthralled and thought it was wonderful escapism - I Interesting to see such a broad range of opinions and ratings. Some of those who've dismissed it I believe are missing the point and probably need to relax a little more. I was enthralled and thought it was wonderful escapism - I thought Kong delivered far more depth of character than I would have expected and I didn't have a problem with the characterisations generally. My expectation was that this would be big, over the top and a thrill and I was satisfied on all counts. Great stuff.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

RichardG.Dec 27, 2005

Slow, bloated, excruciatingly long. Potentially great special effects, stretched out ad nauseum. Example: With distressed damsel clenched in one hand, Kong takes on a T. Rex with the other. The battle goes on and on... after five minutesSlow, bloated, excruciatingly long. Potentially great special effects, stretched out ad nauseum. Example: With distressed damsel clenched in one hand, Kong takes on a T. Rex with the other. The battle goes on and on... after five minutes another one jumps into the ring: wow, twice the thrill and suspense. The battle rages on for another five minutes, then -- omigod, can you believe it! -- another T Rex joins the fray and we… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

OrenK.Dec 27, 2005

Incredible CGI, and amazing attention to detail (as in LOTR). However, it was very very long. Overall, worth seeing and fairly enjoyable.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

BillyM.Dec 27, 2005

In the core of the movie is the relationship between a beautifull blonde and a giant gorilla. if you are able to take that mighty leap of suspension of belief better than the writters and poor naomi watts, you'll enjoy this enormously In the core of the movie is the relationship between a beautifull blonde and a giant gorilla. if you are able to take that mighty leap of suspension of belief better than the writters and poor naomi watts, you'll enjoy this enormously flawed technical tour-de-force.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

ChaseR.Dec 27, 2005

If there is such thing as a perfect movie it is this. Jackson combines amazing graphics with a true to the original story plot. The acting is so good that you won't mind the corny 30s dialouge. Aside from that the special effects are If there is such thing as a perfect movie it is this. Jackson combines amazing graphics with a true to the original story plot. The acting is so good that you won't mind the corny 30s dialouge. Aside from that the special effects are the best I have ever scene.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

DennisL.Dec 27, 2005

Great movie.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

KashiK.Dec 27, 2005

This is a great movie.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

BoskoDec 27, 2005

I don't see why any critic would praise this film but pan (as they all did) Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes" or the "Godzilla" remake. Those movies were more believeable than this one. This is the dumbest film of all time. I don't see why any critic would praise this film but pan (as they all did) Tim Burton's "Planet of the Apes" or the "Godzilla" remake. Those movies were more believeable than this one. This is the dumbest film of all time. There's not one character that didn't belong in a Hanna Babera cartoon.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

JonathanL.Dec 27, 2005

I agree that there can be some editing, but for everyone who overly critizes Kong's length what particular scenes should be left out? Although flawed watching King Kong can be the greatest movie experience of all time. Even if the movie I agree that there can be some editing, but for everyone who overly critizes Kong's length what particular scenes should be left out? Although flawed watching King Kong can be the greatest movie experience of all time. Even if the movie didn't have any storyline the visual and detailed 1930s New York street scenes are worth the admission ticket. Anyone who is bored by King Kong, and can't find anything to draw their attention too, probably shouldn't be wasting their time watching any movie. King Kong is the reason movies are made and Peter Jackson is the King of big budget movies… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

FreaksterDec 27, 2005

Peter Jackson is kidding if he thinks this is quality entertainment. People were laughing out loud and walking out in the middle. The casting was awful and the acting even worse. As for the dialogue I only wish I could criticize it but there Peter Jackson is kidding if he thinks this is quality entertainment. People were laughing out loud and walking out in the middle. The casting was awful and the acting even worse. As for the dialogue I only wish I could criticize it but there wasn't any except for some imbosylic yaking by the horrendous Jack Black. This movie is a total disgrace. If you want to watch stupid moronic nonsense watch the video game. This movie is terrible.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

ClintM.Dec 27, 2005

This was three hours well invested! The action was great and the special effects were incredible! Once the movie wrapped you actually felt rewarded for sitting through the whole thing ... not like many other movies I've seen this year This was three hours well invested! The action was great and the special effects were incredible! Once the movie wrapped you actually felt rewarded for sitting through the whole thing ... not like many other movies I've seen this year where I left feeling robbed of the time I could have used for something else (damn you, Fantastic Four!). Peter Jackson proves he's a master filmmaker and deserved that $20 million dollar paycheck!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

VerminD.Dec 27, 2005

Not a bad film, but not a particularly good one either. Forgettable. In the same league as War of the Worlds, Batman, Narnia, Star Wars and all the other CGI work-outs that have come along this year. If I had to sum it up in one word Not a bad film, but not a particularly good one either. Forgettable. In the same league as War of the Worlds, Batman, Narnia, Star Wars and all the other CGI work-outs that have come along this year. If I had to sum it up in one word I'd say 'confused'. Lots of bits seemed odd, especially Naomi Watts' interactions with Kong … Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

DonN.Dec 27, 2005

This is one of the worst movies I have ever paid full admission for in my life. The movie is about 1.00-1.30 hrs too long. Most of the scenes are unrealistic and the scene transitions are disjointed at times(i.e. sedating King Kong on the This is one of the worst movies I have ever paid full admission for in my life. The movie is about 1.00-1.30 hrs too long. Most of the scenes are unrealistic and the scene transitions are disjointed at times(i.e. sedating King Kong on the island, but not showing how they got him on the boat and to NY). But my favorite unrealistic/stupid/sappy scene was this 25 ft gorilla who must weigh 10 tons, stepping & sliding across the ice on a pond in Central Park without breaking the ice. Save your money!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

WorstOfAllTimeDec 27, 2005

Without question the stupidest most ridiculous movie ever made. It is an attack on anyone with even an ounce of intelligence. This is a remake of a remake. Everyone knows the story and how it ends. There is no suspense. And the special Without question the stupidest most ridiculous movie ever made. It is an attack on anyone with even an ounce of intelligence. This is a remake of a remake. Everyone knows the story and how it ends. There is no suspense. And the special effects are over the top without a story line connected to it that makes any sense. For example do you think the vampire bats would attack Kong or the weak humans who are simply standing there watching? Do you think you could actually catch a ride on a bat and land gently on the water. Do you think one bottle of chloroform put the Big Baby to sleep. And if it did how did they lift him on the small damaged boat that didn't even have a room for Adrian Brody? How did they get him through the door? Why did he not destroy the boat as he did NYC? What did they feed him? If the steel chains did not hold him how did they transport him to the theater without his destroying NYC? How did they rehearse? Why did the natives not try to protect him? Where did they go? This movie had more plot holes than swiss cheese. But you want us to believe that this was a good movie? Why because two-hundred million dollars was spent on bells and whistles with dumbed down special effects? This was eaily the second worst movie of the year behind War of the Worlds. Avoid at all costs.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

Rev.RikardDec 27, 2005

Peter Jackson did a masterful job in making "man more animalistic" in the movie, and "the animal more human." As you watch the movie you observe Kong becoming more humane, and Jack Black's character becoming more inhumane. For example, Peter Jackson did a masterful job in making "man more animalistic" in the movie, and "the animal more human." As you watch the movie you observe Kong becoming more humane, and Jack Black's character becoming more inhumane. For example, one of the powerful moments of this revelation occurs as Kong notes that the sunrise is beautiful, as Black's character is worried that his get-rich scheme has failed. There is definitely a political theme here as well. Jackson (though it can be argued he is just being true to the original film) pointedly shows that the human response to fear is to take a gun and shoot at what it is that scares us. In other words, before asking the relevant, necessary questions, we shoot! The best acting here is not found in word but in the eyes. The eyes of Kong, Brody, and Watts say more about what we really feel that the dialogue, which is sparse and predictable. This is one of the few criticisms I have of the movie. Another is the fact that there is a little too much "Jurassic Park" in the film. We didn't need all those prehistoric scenes. At first they added thrill and excitement, but soon became redundant. About a third of those scenes should have been on the editing floor. The final criticism I had was that awful last line spoken by Black. It was unnecessary, obvious and too cliche. Had he turned and walked away in disgust of himself it would have spoken more powerfully than that "fairy tale line." Still, all in all, I had a great time watching this movie, even if Jackson made me look at my character in light of the simple values of an overgrown silverback.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

BrunoDec 27, 2005

Don't get fooled, the most overrated film I've seen. Hope the critics got at least a lot of money for that. The dialogues in the film are on of the worst ever (If there is nothing, then you've got nothing to lose). There is Don't get fooled, the most overrated film I've seen. Hope the critics got at least a lot of money for that. The dialogues in the film are on of the worst ever (If there is nothing, then you've got nothing to lose). There is not even a second of an art, megalomaniac Jackson have definetly lost his brian. Guy that needs $$$$ to make a film and makes 30 minutes scene where huge dinosaurs fights king kong. No space for character development, dialogs, work with cameras, crafty pictures... all is lost in megalomaniac garbage where 30 feet monster fights another 30 feet monster.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

ArmstrongR.Dec 26, 2005

Mick LaSalle's review of the movie for the San Francisco Chronicle is dead on. Peter Jackson's "Kong" is full of clever ideas, exciting action and touching moments, most of which should have been left on the cutting room floor.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

SeanKimDec 26, 2005

No one does action and emotion better. Dinosaur chase and crash scene was brilliant. The gorilla has more emotion than some actors.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

ParshanB.Dec 26, 2005

This is a masterpiece, It has the best effects and do you know how long and hard it is to make that movie? You have to see it!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

BrandonS.Dec 26, 2005

This is the very definition of a movie deserving of a "7". It teeters on a bizzarre precipice between really good and really bad, and it's up to the individual audiance member to decide which way to push it. I think all could agree that This is the very definition of a movie deserving of a "7". It teeters on a bizzarre precipice between really good and really bad, and it's up to the individual audiance member to decide which way to push it. I think all could agree that it is far far far too long, however. The beginning is fantastically done, the end is competently handled, and the middle is just junk. The movie, in it's middle, trades in "wonder" for "action" and suffers horribly for it. Definately worth going to see, but only if you're in a VERY comfortable and easy going mood. Otherwise you might find yourself throwing a kong like tantrum come hour three...… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

EveK.Dec 26, 2005

What were all those critics smoking? this was the most overstuffed turkey of the holiday season. somebody has to put Peter Jackson on a leash and put him on a budget. maybe then he'd remember that things like a cohesive story and What were all those critics smoking? this was the most overstuffed turkey of the holiday season. somebody has to put Peter Jackson on a leash and put him on a budget. maybe then he'd remember that things like a cohesive story and character development matter even in an action fantasy. everything went on way, way too long. An exposition of over an hour and then when the characters are totally forgettable?? And why did the bats all of a sudden attack Kong, when he's obviously been hanging out with them for eons? There were so many things like that which just didn't make any sense. The scene which would have been really interesting -- how the hell did they get Kong on the ship and keep him alive on the voyage back to New York -- wasn't part of the picture. Sorry, a huge disappointment. Some nice touches for sure, thus the 2 rating instead of a 0, but I cringe at the waste of money.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

StormIestDec 26, 2005

Don't be fooled. This movie is terribly written, and when the visuals seem plastic and fake, and they often do, there is absolutely nothing to keep your attention on screen. Peter Jackson has never made a good film. He just doesn't get it.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

NickK.Dec 26, 2005

A solidly entertaining movie. Although a little long for my taste, every epic movie has to break the two hour time limit. For those of you who think it's crap, you need to learn to sit back and take it for what it is: entertainment.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

DuaneH.Dec 26, 2005

A beautiful movie, if a bit self-indulgent. Its three hours are far too long to keep the story intact. Should not be seen by young children. The PG-13 rating is too generous.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

LameBrainDec 26, 2005

Lamest movie of the year. Too bad to be believed. Acting was atroicious. Peter Jackson should be ashamed of himself. A waste of 2 hundred million bucks. Movie is over 3 hours long and the first third is duller than moss growing on a rock. Lamest movie of the year. Too bad to be believed. Acting was atroicious. Peter Jackson should be ashamed of himself. A waste of 2 hundred million bucks. Movie is over 3 hours long and the first third is duller than moss growing on a rock. The second act is a return to Jurassic Park with some of the stupidest written scenes ever created. A trained monkey could have written a script better than this. By the time they reach NY the movie should have capsized but we are forced to watch a last act without any dialogue. I think I saw Adrian Brody looking at his watch hoping Kong would jump to his death. I think he wishes it could have been him to be associated with such a lame effort. Avoid like the plague.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

JackDec 26, 2005

By the general public, this movie is extremely underrated. Peter Jackson does an AMAZING job of keeping to the original storyline as precisely as possible, but still making it his own. With amazing CGI, awsome performances by Naomi Watts and By the general public, this movie is extremely underrated. Peter Jackson does an AMAZING job of keeping to the original storyline as precisely as possible, but still making it his own. With amazing CGI, awsome performances by Naomi Watts and Jack Black, and a completely orignal and untampered storyline, this movies becomes larger than life. The orginal plot is based around King Kong's love for Naomi Watts character, and Peter Jackson does an amazing job at keeping that aparrent in his movie. All who dislike this movie are just pretentious pricks who dislike any movie that gets aclaim, or really is just plain blind. It's amazing, it certifies Peter Jackson as a genious auture.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

JoseC.Dec 26, 2005

The is long much longer then it needed to be. However, it is still a good movie. if you can't sit still or have finite attention spans. stay home

0 of 0 users found this helpful

3

ScottE.Dec 26, 2005

I am so embarrassed to admit that I took my relatives to see this movie. Not only was it just laughably bad throughout the first hour, I can't say that it got any better as the audience was introduced to Act II at "Skull Island." With I am so embarrassed to admit that I took my relatives to see this movie. Not only was it just laughably bad throughout the first hour, I can't say that it got any better as the audience was introduced to Act II at "Skull Island." With such lame acting and such horrible casting of Adrien Brody & Jack Black, I started to glance at my watch repeatedly, wondering if it would get any better anytime soon. I have to admit that the dinosaur battles were viscerally exciting, but every other scene on the island seemed insulting. The part with the bugs was especially repulsive and head-scratchingly unnecessary. Why were we forced to see such an unoriginal movie? Only after the implausible transfer of Kong to New York does this movie actually pick up pace and start to redeem itself. At that point, it's too little, too late. Everyone in the theater was captivated by the Empire State Building sequence but not much else. Bottom Line: The movie dragged when Kong/Watts were not in the scene. No amount of CGI can save this self-indulgent film, no matter how much the critics praise this superficially bloated bust of a remake.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

ZoeDec 25, 2005

The first hour was great; perfect for getting us hooked into the time period, the characters and their motivations. Unlike "War of the Worlds," which gave us no connection to the characters, the fact that Jackson gives us this time is The first hour was great; perfect for getting us hooked into the time period, the characters and their motivations. Unlike "War of the Worlds," which gave us no connection to the characters, the fact that Jackson gives us this time is laudable, although I could have done without the "Heart of Darkness" duo. Doesn't Jackson know that in an action flick like this you only have time to care about a couple of characters? Trying to force in more "heart" always feels...er...forced. Ironically, as the action speeds up in the second third, my interest fell. Some fabulous action scenes are overshadowed by some gratuitous action scenes. I wish there had been more time spent here developing the chemistry between Anne and Kong rather than throwing in every cool effect they could think of. The final third was brilliant. Loved it. In the end, this movie is flawed simply because as an audience we're not naive enough to appreciate the whole vision. But, don't wait for home video. This one is definitely worth seeing on the big screen.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

BillyD.Dec 25, 2005

I love giant monsters. I grew up on them. I chanted "giant monkey" over and over again as I walked into the theatre. Man, was this a piece of boring crap. The effects looked terrible-everything had that CGI sheen. Acting was bored to bad. I love giant monsters. I grew up on them. I chanted "giant monkey" over and over again as I walked into the theatre. Man, was this a piece of boring crap. The effects looked terrible-everything had that CGI sheen. Acting was bored to bad. The beginning was drawn out but okay. The middle might has well have been cutscenes from a videogame. And the ending was very welcome. Shame on all involved for making me hate a fight between dinosaurs and a gargatuan ape. I should have been the easiest sell in the world, but instead I watched my shoes for the last hour of the movie.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

10

Marshman88Dec 25, 2005

Amazing...that's all there is to say.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

BobbieSocksDec 25, 2005

This is a mad house. Did you people actually see the same film that I witnessed. It was awful. Everything was stolen from another movie. The script was lame, the acting wooden, and as for the directing, Peter Jackson should find a new This is a mad house. Did you people actually see the same film that I witnessed. It was awful. Everything was stolen from another movie. The script was lame, the acting wooden, and as for the directing, Peter Jackson should find a new career. There was no suspense because we all know how it ends. Now if Jackson had jumped off the Empire State Building now that would have been an ending to remember. Jackson stay home in New Zealand because if this is all you can turn out with a budget of two-hundred million you are in deep trouble. Avoid this turkey at all costs.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

LadyLibertyDec 25, 2005

Peter Jackson joins Steven Spielberg and George Lucas as an "over the hill let me show you how I can waste money" no talent with special effects moronic movies. First he bores us to tears with over an hour on boring stuff. Then he takes us Peter Jackson joins Steven Spielberg and George Lucas as an "over the hill let me show you how I can waste money" no talent with special effects moronic movies. First he bores us to tears with over an hour on boring stuff. Then he takes us to Skull Island or should I say back to Jurassic Park and presents some of the lamest writing this side of War Of The Worlds. And if this isn't bad enough he totally miscasts Jack Black and Adrian Brody. The last hour you just can't wait for the Big Ape to jump off of the Empire State Building. There's no dialogue of any consequence and Naomi Watts as Ann Darrow is unbelievable climbing up the steps to the top of the building in the dead of winter in a shear dress and high heel shoes. And yes, if you still buy this garbage, I have a bridge that I would like to sell you.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

LoriU.Dec 25, 2005

The direction in this movie puts all the other originals to shame. Peter Jackson did a superb job in all his character even with King Kong himself. The movie was like a roller-coaster ride all the way through. Definitely a must see film!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

LeroyDec 24, 2005

Only three hours too long otherwise it was great.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

JayF.Dec 24, 2005

Peter Jackson pulls off yet another epic although this isn't a fantasy world with wizards and hobbits but with prehistoric creatures and a mysterious island. Jackson really does deliver his promise that he had always wanted to remake Peter Jackson pulls off yet another epic although this isn't a fantasy world with wizards and hobbits but with prehistoric creatures and a mysterious island. Jackson really does deliver his promise that he had always wanted to remake the original film ever since he was a kid and he did a great job with it. Naomi Watts handles the character very well. Adrien Brody turns the rugged sailor Jack Driscoll and makes him into an unlikely hero, a simple playwrite. Jack Black is not a funnyman in this picture but a filmmaker gone rouge instead of an adventurer like in the original. The natives of Skull Island are not the natives from jungle movies of the 30s but something out of a modern day zombie film! Of course, what would the film be without its title character Kong. Kong is very ferocious on one side but on another he is a very emotional beast. Peter Jackson and WETA have breathed life back into one of the most influential monster films of all. Had there not been any King Kong to begin with we wouldn't had monsters like Godzilla or Jaws. So thank you Peter Jackson for remaking a classic monster film and remaking it right and lets hope other filmmakers will remember this movie when they have to remake another classic movie monster.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

ElleR.Dec 24, 2005

This is without a doubt the best film of the year. It is terrific, will have you on the edge of your seat, has a magnificent cast- naomi Watts, for example is in deserving of an oscar with her take on Ann darrow. It was just fabulous.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

BlakeT.Dec 24, 2005

Great film that achieves its goal with ease. If you do to this movie thinking "Lord of the Rings" or anything of such an epic scale, you will be dissappointed. This movie was meant to be a fun thrill ride that toys with your emotions. Enjoy Great film that achieves its goal with ease. If you do to this movie thinking "Lord of the Rings" or anything of such an epic scale, you will be dissappointed. This movie was meant to be a fun thrill ride that toys with your emotions. Enjoy it for what it is and don't treat it like "Citizen Cane" as so many of the other reviewers here have done. My only real complaint with the film was the pacing and length. It was a bit long and the pacing seemed off a bit. Great casting job, though.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

ChadS.Dec 23, 2005

When we get to Skull Island, it's "Spot the DVD Bonus Footage"-time. The dinosaur stampede can stay, but all those cave creatures was too much of a good thing; that is, if you consider CGI a good thing. It throws the whole film out of When we get to Skull Island, it's "Spot the DVD Bonus Footage"-time. The dinosaur stampede can stay, but all those cave creatures was too much of a good thing; that is, if you consider CGI a good thing. It throws the whole film out of whack, and even the most ardent action junkie will be able to feel the excess. The big gorilla is upstaged by a "Jurassic Park" hijack. In the human division, Naomi Watts is typically Watts-like, but Adrien Brody looks bored, and Jack Black, in trying to distance himself from his comic persona, seems a little too muted. "King Kong" is mildly disappointing, saved only by art design and a brilliant way of showing how Hollywood depicts indigenous cultures.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

CwellDec 23, 2005

Awesome. With a short attention span, you're never bored. Hold your attention and it captivates you. Best remake of all time!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

MichaelL.Dec 23, 2005

Only one hour too long.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

FernandoK.Dec 23, 2005

Peter Jackson tried to play with our feelings about Kong¡¡ That scene "Kong Bambi in the ice" is ridiculous¡ He put that scene just a few seconds before the tragedy just to make the tears come out¡ In many cases it Peter Jackson tried to play with our feelings about Kong¡¡ That scene "Kong Bambi in the ice" is ridiculous¡ He put that scene just a few seconds before the tragedy just to make the tears come out¡ In many cases it worked, but it notices the intention¡ But its a great movie with amazing effects¡¡ after all Peter Jackson dissapoint me¡ He is only that.. effects¡¡… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

IvanS.Dec 23, 2005

Brilliant! Kong totally stole the show...

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

BillnTedDec 23, 2005

Wow. People are saying this remake is imaginative and original? The fact that it's a REMAKE aside, this movie is taken from scraps of every stupid film Jackson seems to have been able to think of, from Jurassic Park to his own Lord of Wow. People are saying this remake is imaginative and original? The fact that it's a REMAKE aside, this movie is taken from scraps of every stupid film Jackson seems to have been able to think of, from Jurassic Park to his own Lord of the Rings trilogy. Jackson is the most overrated director around right now (since some people are finally on to Spielberg).… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

VeejayDec 23, 2005

Looked great but story lacked and many of the action sequences were WAY too long, kind of like an adolescent fantasy...loved Lord of the Rings, but this one was a yawn.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

ScottH.Dec 23, 2005

Great story and effects, just TOO long!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

AntonioH.Dec 23, 2005

Quite disappointing. I think one reason people feel so agitated by this film is that Jackson spends over an hour building up trying to build up suspense for a story that everyone already knows. If the ape was a mystery, then we could buy all Quite disappointing. I think one reason people feel so agitated by this film is that Jackson spends over an hour building up trying to build up suspense for a story that everyone already knows. If the ape was a mystery, then we could buy all the ominous talk on the ship. Instead, I found myself waiting for the inevitable. And it doesn't help that the audience knows exactly what is coming because they have all seen an endless number of previews. It is truly perplexing that Jackson, who does have a creative vision, decided to focus the main action scene on a battle with T-Rexes. Remake King Kong. Don't remake Jurassic Park. Why spend $200 million on something so unoriginal. And, yes, Jack Black is the wry hipster horribly misplaced in a 1930's era film.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

JoshuaS.Dec 23, 2005

Insulting in its attempt to subvert the racism inherit in the story, sub-Jurrasic Park level dinosaur effects. Too long by 45 minutes and yet still mildly entertaining.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

WendyDec 23, 2005

This movie was an abomintion. It was awful. Peter Jackson has lost touch with reality if he thinks this was good. Truly awful. Stay far away. The audience was laughing and walking out.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

[Anonymous]Dec 23, 2005

Wow! I was taken away, especially by the love between both the woman and the ape and the woman and the man. I was in tears, crying several times in this movie and I never cry (except for The Titanic). It was a bit long in some areas and not Wow! I was taken away, especially by the love between both the woman and the ape and the woman and the man. I was in tears, crying several times in this movie and I never cry (except for The Titanic). It was a bit long in some areas and not long enough in others...but overall amazing special effects, acting, and story line. Beautiful job! Naomi Watts and whoever played the ape deserve some sort of high recognition--I forgot I was in a movie....it seemed so real to me. It pulled out so many emotions I can't even express!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

WyattEarpDec 23, 2005

The special effects were excellent but then again so is ice cream. What happens to you if you devour a full gallon of ice cream? You get deathly ill that's what. And that is what happend with this remake trash of a movie. The suspense The special effects were excellent but then again so is ice cream. What happens to you if you devour a full gallon of ice cream? You get deathly ill that's what. And that is what happend with this remake trash of a movie. The suspense part is totally gone because unless you are in an isolation chamber somewhere everyone knows the tragic story of Beauty and The Beast vis-a-vis King Kong. So no suspense. Enter Peter Jackson with his $200 million budget of toys. Peter says I'll show them what I can do. And for the next three hours he first puts us to sleep with irrelevant shots of the depression of 1933 which has nothing to do with King Kong. He gives us actors who can't act with some of the clumsiest writing this side of the 21st century. If that isn't bad enough, after over an hour of crapola he finally takes us Skull Island vis-a-vis a rip off of Jurassic Park. He comes with special effect after specail effect ad nauseam. The story line with these special effects are totally implausable. By this time the audience is actually laughing at his stupidity. And if this wasn't bad enough somehow he manages to skip over getting Kong back on the little boat that could taking him back so that he could destroy NYC in the dead of winter with Ann Darrow in a sheer dress with high heels on top of the Empire State Building. The only thing that could have saved this movie was if when Kong tried to save her, instead she put her finer down her throat and jumped. Now that would have been the fitting ending to this trailer trash of an effort because that is how I and most of the audience felt on the way out of the theater. I actually saw people with bags over their heads not wanting to be identified. Horrible.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

KingkongDec 23, 2005

Wow what a movie...its unbelievable really the eye for detail...the end the beginning everything is fantastic, best movie that i haved see this year really amazing.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

GregC.Dec 23, 2005

A visual assault from start to finish!! flippin' brilliant!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

GogsH.Dec 23, 2005

Brilliant remake spoiled by 4 very silly scenes. 1. The unsinkable ship 2. WWF meets King Kong - why 3 T-Rex 3. Stupid Stampeed of dinosaurs 4. Bugs life - what a shot Take these out you get a shorter and far more true remake.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

AurelioS.Dec 23, 2005

great film, una pasada.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

2

BenjitheGreatDec 23, 2005

I am confounded by the positive reviews this movie has gotten from the press. The first hour and twenty minutes or so of the movie are a complete waste of film devoid of any entertainment value. The characters are uninteresting, the dialogue I am confounded by the positive reviews this movie has gotten from the press. The first hour and twenty minutes or so of the movie are a complete waste of film devoid of any entertainment value. The characters are uninteresting, the dialogue sucks, and the scenes are pointless. Take for instance the beginning shots of depression-era New York City. I can't for the life of me think of a single reason for this sequence of annoying shots to be here except for Peter Jackson to show off behind the camera and play around with his 200 million budget. Then when we finally do get to the island and things start to get interesting, it's already too late to regain faith in the film. The audience during this film was laughing and hooting after about an hour until the end of the film. Although this usually annoys me during a movie i cant say I really blame them in this case. It shames me to say that I have lost faith in Peter Jackson as an honest filmaker after this tragedy, as I am a fan of his previous work.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

King Kong

User Reviews